IR 05000272/1990016
| ML18095A311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18095A310 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-90-16, 50-311-90-16, NUDOCS 9006270271 | |
| Download: ML18095A311 (8) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Report No Docket No License No Licensee:
50-272z90-16 50-311_90-16 50-272 and 50-311 DPR-70 and DPR-75
REGION I
.
Public Service Electric Company P. O.- Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name : Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted : May 29-June 1, 1990
- Inspector:
(ERPS}
Approved by: ~*
oer~ief, ERPS, Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 6 - 17-f ()
Date Date Inspection Summary:
1990 Ins ection Re ort No Areas Inssected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's radioactive *
liquid an gaseous effluent control programs including: management controls for these programs, calibration* of effluent/process radiation monitors, air cleaning systems, and implementation of the Offsite Dose Calcula.tion Manua *
Results: Within the areas inspected~ no violations were identified. However, an unmonitored radioactive liquid release from Unit 2 on May 21, 1990 was categorized as a non-cited violatioh (See Section 5.1 of this inspection report}.
Response to the non-cited violation is not require The licensee's corrective actions for the Radiation Monitoring and Air Cleaning Systems were moving appropriately in the right direction.
. 1.0 Individuals Contacted Licensee Personnel DETAILS J. Curham, Senior Staff Engineer S. Cornman, Lead Engineer, Operations
- J. Dierickx, Technical Supervisor, RP/Chemistry Department
- E. Galbraith, Principle Chemistry Engineer, RP/Chemistry Department J. Grimm, Lead Engineer, Technical Department R. Lemberger, Lead Engineer, Technical Department
- P. McNulty, Technical Supervisor, RP/Chemistry Department
- L. Miller, General Manager, Salem Operations
- D. Miller, Engineer,.Chemistry Services D. Mohler, Manager, RP/Chemistry Department
- M. Morroni, Manager, Technical Department
- A. Orticelle, Manager, Maintenance Department
- R. Palmer, Radiation Protection Supervisor, RP/Chemistry Department M. Pollack, LER Coordinator F. Roberts, Lead Engineer, Technical Department T. Sacca, Lead Engineer, NQA Department
- F. Thomson, Assistant to General Manager
- E. Villar, Station Licensing Engineer R. Werline, Engineer, Operations 1. 2 NRC
- D. Allsopp, Resident Inspector, Hope Creek/Salem Stations
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on MaY 31, 1~9 Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed during this inspectio.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's ability to control and quantify radioactive liquids, gases, and particulates during normal and emergency operations 3.0 Review of Previously Identified Items (Open) Unresolved Item (UNR 272/89-10-02; 311/89-09-02) Provide air balance and relative humidity test results for air cleaning systems to the NR The licensee will establish a task team for the design, maintenance, and operation of the various HVAC systems in the near future (Licensee's Internal Memorandum MEC-90-0210 dated June 1, 1990). The initial phase will entail scoping of the total project. This phase is projected to begin in
June I990 and be complete no later than the end of December I99 The licensee stated that the air balance test will be performed during Unit I refueling outage in Fall I990. This item remains open pending the review of air balance and humidity test result (Open) Unresolved Item (UNR 272/89-I5-08) Oxygen concentrations in the waste gas decay tank exceeded Technical Specification limits and were not reduced within the required tim See details Section 5.2 of this inspection repor.0 Management Controls 4.I Program Changes There were no significant changes in the licensee's Radiological Effluent Control Programs since the previous inspection in May I98 ~2 Audits The inspector reviewed the results of the quality assurance audit documented in Audit Report Number NQP~89-0664. This audit covered, in part, the areas of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and liquid and gaseous effluent control program The inspector noted
that the audit was performed by qualified auditors. The inspector also noted that the audit appeared to thoroughly assess the ODCM and liquid and gaseous effluent control program The inspector noted that the audit identified few findings; none of safety significanc The inspector also reviewed the effectiveness of the licensee's audit followup tracking system using the licensee's previous audit finding documented in Audit Report Number SA-88-Q036-I, alarm setpoint for the Unit I liquid effluent monitor (IRIS).
The Radiatinn
.
Protection/Chemistry Department had a responsibility to reply to the above audit finding by December 23, I98 The above audit followup item was closed on April I; I989 due to.an extensive evaluation for the determination of alarm setpoint. Based on the review of the above finding and response to the finding*, the inspector determined that the licensee was using the tracking system effectivel No violations were identified in this area. \\
4.3 Review of Semiannual Reports The inspector reviewed the Radiological Semiannual Effluent Reports for I98 These reports provided total released radioactivity for liquid and gaseous effluents including projected radiation dose to the publi No obvious mistakes or trends were note Through review of these reports, the inspector determined that the licensee met the
.
Technical Specification requirement No violations were identified.
- 5.0 Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Controls The inspector reviewed the licensee's liquid and gaseous effluent control programs to determine implementation of the. following Technical Specification (TS) requirements for both units.
. o TS 3/4.11.1, "Liquid Effluents"
- o TS 3/4.11.2, "Gaseous Effluents"
The inspector reviewed the following radioactive effluent release control procedures and also reviewed selected radioactive liquid and gaseous release permits to determine the adequacy of implementation of the above requirement.
o CH-3.8.51,
"Radiolo~ical Effl~ent Discharge Report Generation and Complet1on" o OP II-3.2(b), "Release of Radioactive Liquid Waste to the Circul~ting Water System from 11 or 12 Monitor Tanks" o OP II-12.3.3, "Discharge of Gaseous Waste to the Plant Vent" The inspector noted that Procedure CH-3.8.51 was sufficiently detailed to implement liquid and gaseous radioactive effluent release control program The reviewed liquid and gaseous release permits met the requirements for sampling and analysis at the frequencies established in the Technical Specifications. During the review of liquid release permits, the inspector noted that Operations personnel recorded the liquid effluent monitoring results, using the control room readout panel and/or strip chart, before and during releases as required by Steps 6.1 and 6.2 of OP II-3.2(b).
These monitoring results were attached to the liquid release permits. The
. effluent monitoring results prior to initiation of the releases (Step 6.1)
are expected to be lower than the ~onitoring results du~ing the releases (Step 6.2), since the latter would reflect the activity in the release..
ihe inspector randomly selected ten (10) liquid release permits for each unit and reviewed these monitoring results. Four-results out of ten for Unit 1 and nine results out of ten for Unit 2 appeared to be recorded
.
accurately based on the incremental increase seen during the discharge versus results prior to the discharg (For the other releases, the
- results recorded during.the releases were either the same as or lower than the results recorded before these respective releases.) The inspector compared these somewhat more accurately recorded monitoring results usin9 the conversion factor (cpm/uCi/ml) to the gamma counting results (uCi/ml).
The comparison indicated that the results were in reasonably good
- agreement..Based on the above reviews, the inspector stated the following actions should be taken to assure the operability of the liquid effluent monitor *
o Steps 6.1 and 6.2 of OP II-3.2(b) should be recorded accuratel o Comparisons between monitoring results and gamma counting results should be performe *
o These comparison data should be used as a management tool and to monitor trend analysi The licensee stated that the above recommended actions will be evaluated and appropriate actions taken in the futur The inspector stated that this area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio No violations were identifie *
5.1 Unmonitored Radioactive Liquid Release from Unit 2 On May 21, 1990, the l i censee i dent i fi ed that }'.'ad i oact i ve l i qu i.d from Unit 2 (22 CVCS Monitor Tank) was released without monitoring during the release due to an isolation of the 2R18 liquid effluent monitoring line valve (4491HN).
This valve was closed for the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the monitor tank prior to the release in order to oxidize hydrazine, because the licensee does not have a New Jersey permit to release hydrazine to the Delaware River. A Chemistry technician _neglected to reopen this valve as required by Procedure SC.CH-AD.WL-0416(Q), "Chemical Addition to the Waste System" after the addition of hydrogen peroxide. The Chemistry Department, however, sampled and measured radioactivity in that monitor tank and performed dose projection to the public before release as required by the Technical Specifications. The inspector reviewed these results and determined that there was no impact on the public health and safety.
To prevent recurrence, the licensee performed the following corrective action o Procedure SC.CH-AD.WL-0416(Q) has been revised requiring verification and sign-off that valve 4491HN is open after hydrogen peroxide additio o A critique on the revision was given to all Chemistry technicians and the critique also stressed the necessity for absolute procedure compliance and attention to detai o Operating Procedure II-1.3.6 was submitted for revision to require verification of valve positions for liquid release The failure to follow Procedure SC.CH-AD.WL-0416(Q) is considered a licensee identified violation in that (1) it was identified by the licensee; (2) it fits into Severity Level IV or V; (3) the licensee took aggressive actions to correct the deficiency and to prevent recurrence; and (4) this was the first occurrence of this type of even Consequ~ntly, no notice of violation will be issued and this*
issue is considered closed (50-311/90-lfr-Ol).
5.2 Unresolved Item 272/89-15-08 (Oxygen Concentration)
On May 19, 1990, an Operations personnel docum~nted an incident
regarding the oxygen concentration in the Unit 1 waste gas decay tank in excess of Technical Specification.limits (2%).
The oxygen
- concentration of the waste gas decay tank was 2.08 The licensee reported similar events in LERs89-016 and 89-03 The inspector also noted that this type of incident (based on LER 89-016) was identified as an unresolved item by the NRC (UNR 272/89-15-08), and the root cause of the oxygen ingress has been attributed by the licensee to system design and procedural problem The inspector did not review the licensee system design during this inspectio The inspector reviewed the following Operations Procedures to determine the
.
adequac¥. of the implementation of Section *3/4.11.2.5, "Explosive Gas Mixture' of the Technical Specification.
o Operating Procedure (OP) 11-2.3.1, "Purging the Pressurizer Relief Tank of Oxy~en"
o OP II-3.3.4, "Placing CVCS Holdup Tanks in Service" o OP II-11.3.4, "Reactor Coolant Drain Tank-Normal Operation" o OP 11-12.3.1, "Gaseous Waste Disposal System-Normal Operation" o ARP-OHA-D, "Alarm Response Procedure Overhead Window D
- _
Section 4.0, "Manual Actions" of the Procedure ARP-OHA-D requires the licensee to Cl) determine cause of alarm, (2} notify Maintenance Department -l&C to correct cause of alarm, and (3) if I&C declares the Gas Analyzer inoperable, then either transfer sampling to Units 1/2 Gas Analyzer or notify Chemistry Department to commence grab samp*l i ng from Waste Gas Holdup Syste Alarm Response Procedure ARP-OHA-D lacks details and does riot provide further guidance to the operator It did not cross-reference other Operatin~ Procedure The inspector noted that the Operating Procedures contained instructions to purge an excess oxy~en content from various tanks to reduce oxygen concentration within the Technical Specifications during normal operations. 'Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the unresolved item will remain open pending the upgrade of the Alarm Response Procedure and Operating Procedures, as appropriate, as well as completion of any necessary system modification.
The inspector reviewed chemistry Department Log for oxygen analyses.
for 1987, 1989, and 1990 and found them satisfactor ~0 Calibration of Effluent/Process Monitors The inspector reviewed the*most recent calibration results for both units for the following effluent/process monit~rs to determine the implementation of the Technical Specification requirement o Liquid Radwaste Effluent Line Monitors (1,2-Rl8)
.
o Steam Generator 8lowdown Monitor~ (1,2-R19A, 198, 19C, ~nd 19D)
o Main Steam Line Monitors (1,2-R46A, 468, 46C, 46D, and 46E)
.
o Containment Fan Cooler-Service Water Monitors (1,2-R13A, 138, 13C, 13D, and 13E)
- *
o Containment Vent Monitors (I,2-RI2A and RI2B)
o Plant Vent Effluent Monitors (I,2-RI6)
o Plant Vent Monitors (I-R4IA, 4IB, and 4IC)
The I&C Department has the responsibility to perform electronic and radiolo~ical calibrations for all effluent and process monitor Based on the review of the above monitor calibration records, the inspector determined that the calibrations were performed as required by the appropriate procedures and by the Technical Specification No violations were identifie *
7.0. Radiation Monitoring Systems (RMS)
Spurious RMS signals have initiated numerous Emergency Safety Feature (ESF)
actuations and the licensee has submitted LERs based on these ESF actuations since I98 During the previous inspection in May I989, the inspector evaluated eleven (II) LERs and three Special Reports (SRs)
.
regarding the RM The ins~ector determined that the major root cause of LERs and SRs was equipment failure, rather than inadequate procedures or personnel errors. The licensee, therefore, had established short and long term projects to upgrade the RM During this inspection, the pro~ress of these projects was discussed with licensee representatives. The inspecto~ was informed that the progress bf short and long term projects established in I988 was on schedule~* The short and long term projects were installation of a central process unit in I990 and replacement of ESF radiation monitoring system in I99I, respectivel The inspector reviewed those ESF radiation monitors which will be replaced in I99 The inspector stated that the progress of the projects Will be reviewed during subsequent inspections. The inspector had no further questions in this are *
The inspector examined the operability of the follo~ing ESF radiation monitors: plant vent monitors (I,2-R4IA, 4IB, and 4IC), plant vent effluent monitors (l,2-Rl6)i and containment vent monitors-(l,2-Rl2A) during this inspection. All of these monitors appeared to be functional at the time of this examinatio The inspector had no further questions at this tim.0 Air Cleaning Systems The inspector reviewed the surveillance test results for the air cleaning systems durin~ the previous inspection in May 1989. Consequently, the inspector reviewed the most recent surveillance test results only for the Unit 2 Control Room Emergency Filtration and Auxiliary Building Exhaust Air Ventilation Systems during this inspectio For these systems, the inspector reviewed the results of the following inspections and test o Visual Inspections
.
o In-Place HEPA Leak Tests
o In-Place Charcoal Leak Tests*
o System Air Flow Rate Tests (Air Capacity Tests)
o Pressure Drop Tests o Laboratory Tests for the Iodine Collection Efficiencies All reviewed test results were found to be within the Technical Specification acceptance criteri No violations were identifie The inspector noted that the Radiation Protection (RP) Department assumed the responsibility for the air cleaning system surveillance tests. The inspector discussed the air cleaning systems with the responsible individua The inspector noted that this individual had good knowledge
- about the surveillance test procedures and other aspects, such as air flow test and acceptance criteria. The inspector also noted that this individual is going to attend an air cleaning system training cour*e in the near futur The inspector stated that the licensee actions in this area were goo The inspector had no further question.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1.1) on May 31, 199 The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspectio The inspection _was continued after the exit interview until June 1, 199 No additional significant findings were identified.